System and Method for Creating, Managing, Evaluating, Optimizing Creating Business Partnership Standards and Creating Reuseable Knowledge and Business Intelligence for Business Partnerships and Alliances

ABSTRACT

A system and method for determining business partner value by creating weighted metrics for identifying, evaluating and selecting a business partner for a company; creating a business agreement and weighted metrics for evaluating the agreement; creating weighted metrics for ongoing management of the partner; and managing the partner by ongoing periodic evaluation of the weighted metrics for partner selection, agreement, and management. Both company and partners may participate in the evaluation on an ongoing basis (e.g., once per month or once per quarter) rather than an annual review. In one embodiment, weighted metrics of partner selection, agreement, and management are reported, charted and graphed providing for visual evaluation and side-by-side comparison of the perceptions of company and partner for optimization of the business relationship and prediction of future performance.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This patent application is a continuation of U.S. patent applicationSer. No. 10/992,491, filed Nov. 17, 2004, which is incorporated byreference along with all other references cited in this application.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to the field of creating, managing,evaluating, and optimizing business partnerships and alliances. Includedin the present invention is that it relates to the field of creatingmeasurements that reflect industry standards for the field of inventionand that it also relates to the field of creating knowledge and businessintelligence data and information in the field. It includes partnershipsand alliances which operate in a vendor/vendee capacity by assigningweighted and comparative metrics to the following criteria: PartnerSelection, Partner Agreement, and Partner Management which, incombination, track a Partner Value.

It includes Customer Support Relationships (partnerships) betweencompanies and customers and it includes Sales Force SFA Relationships(partnerships) between companies and customers. It includes additionalapplication in pharmaceuticals, Biotechs, Manufacturing, FinancialServices, and other industries where there are partnerships between twoor more separate business entities.

The convergence of three business issues relating to alliances, saleschannels and business partnerships creation and management has led tothe substantial need for the development of a new system and method tocreate, manage, evaluate, optimize, create business partnershipstandards and create re-useable knowledge and business intelligence asit applies to the alliances, channels and business partnerships. Thesebusiness issues are the need to improve alliance, channel and businesspartnership effectiveness in order to achieve desired results; the needto quickly capture knowledge relating to best practices and the impactof program, process, product and personnel changes as baby boomers willsoon retire and knowledgeable staff continue to transition to othercompanies and; the need to create business intelligence and knowledgewhich can only be accurate and predictable if information on allpartnership aspects are captured.

Since the year 2000 to present, as the economy slowly comes out of therecession, companies are continuing to seek ways to increase efficiencyand productivity while continuing to drive out costs. This approach hasbeen very effective in assisting companies in maintaining profitability.Employees are more productive. Expenses are tightly controlled. Thereare very few places left to create efficiency on many companies' incomestatements and balance sheets. Doing more with less does have benefitsto the bottom line. However, too much efficiency greatly impactsemployee effectiveness. Therefore, productivity gains may not be asgreat as companies believe them to be.

As baby boomers start to retire in the next five years, as employeeschange jobs and go to work for other companies, and as the economybecomes more global, it will become more and more critical to capturethe personal knowledge and experience held by these employees. Byunderstanding the Strategy Evolution and Impact of Demand Generation andCustomer Support Optimization on Business Intelligence, Corporate Valueand Corporate Strategy, companies can greatly improve effectiveness andtheir ability to capture significant knowledge that will result inincreased revenues and further decreased costs.

Over the past two decades, there has been an evolution in customersupport and business process improvement. It started with InformationTechnology Service Management (ITSM), also called Help Desk, to supportinternal computer users. Initially, for those of us that remember, thiswas to support internal customers using mainframe systems that were solarge that they could fill a room. As the acceptance of personalcomputers (PCs) and personal computer (PC) servers increased and demandfor internal customer support increased, pencils, pens, paper andspreadsheets became too inefficient to cost effectively support theseoperations. Companies had two choices. They could build their ownapplications at great expense or look to the outside and purchase asoftware solution that would cost effectively, automate their helpdeskprocesses. This automation greatly increased efficiency and, as thehelpdesk market matured, drove out costs. As time has passed, businessprocess management, Six Sigma and ITIL have been applied to thesesupport processes in order to further increase support efficiency andcustomer satisfaction.

Companies measure process efficiency to determine additional areas andprocesses that can be improved in order to increase return oninvestments (ROIs). Service level agreements have become the norm.Processes have been created to provide self service to company internalcustomers in order to increase efficiency and decrease support costs.Solution knowledge bases have been created to further decrease costs andimprove efficiency and customer satisfaction.

Over the last decade, there has been an evolution in the automation ofcustomer support processes. Customer Relationship Management (CRM) hassteadily grown as a mission critical application in almost allcompanies. Customer Service, as it was once called, was a laborintensive, inefficient and costly business function. As competition inalmost all markets has increased, cost management and customersatisfaction have become critical areas to manage, the need to automatesupport processes became critical to a company's success. Companiesagain had two choices. Companies could build an in-house solution orthey could purchase a software solution from the outside. Thisautomation greatly increased efficiency and, as the customer supportmarket matured, drove out costs. As time has passed, business processmanagement and Six Sigma have been applied to these support processes inorder to further increase support efficiency and customer satisfaction.Companies measure process efficiency to determine additional areas andprocesses that can be improved in order to increase ROIs. Quantitativeservice level agreements have become the norm. Processes have beencreated to provide self service to customers in order to increaseefficiency and decrease support costs. Solution knowledge bases havebeen created to further decrease costs and improve efficiency andcustomer satisfaction.

As the market moves forward and the need to further increase customersatisfaction, business intelligence is becoming the next “Killer App”for customer support. Not only are companies dedicating resources toproduct research, but they are also gathering human capital quality datato gain further insight into the customer in order to improve numerousareas within a company. For example, instead of just asking a respondent“do you like the red product?”, companies are starting to ask andelectronically capture why the respondent likes or does not like the redproduct to gain further insight. Some companies are even askingrespondents what would the companies need to do to the product for therespondents to buy it even if it was red. At some point, there will beintegration between business intelligence and predictive modeling. Asmore data is captured regarding how qualitative information impactsquantitative results, accurate predictions, not only regarding customersupport, will be developed. This will result in great progress towardscompany optimization.

Sales Force Automation has become a standard application in mostcompanies. There has been a recognized need to assist the sales warriorsin increasing their efficiency. Salespeople seem to forget about theirpaperwork and concentrate on selling. Stacks of paper are piled on theirdesks. If someone were to walk by, they would know that the desk wasthat of a salesperson. Sometimes, it seems like the salesperson with themost stacks of paper is the most successful. In the last decade, therehas been a significant increase in the sale of Sales Force Automationsoftware.

This is for a few reasons. The first is to gain more efficiency inselling a company's product. It has been felt that if a salesperson isbetter organized, the salesperson will have more time to sell. The toolhouses quantitative information regarding accounts, contacts, salesquotes, forecasts, calendars and other vital account information. Ittracks the quantitative aspects of the relationship. Salespeople areoften the highest paid individuals in a company. Their ability togenerate demand and revenue is critical to the success of the company.Their contacts are valuable assets. If a salesperson should leave andtheir account information has not been captured, the company mustrecreate those contacts and relationships at great expense and time. SFAtools also provide insight into how the salesperson spends his or hertime. This can be used to capture knowledge on sales best practices andto identify areas where the salesperson can improve. As competition inalmost all markets has increased, sales efficiency, cost control andaccount knowledge have become critical areas to manage, the need toautomate sales and sales support processes has became critical to acompany's success. A company's measure of a salesperson's success is byperformance. They have also added the salesperson's proficient andrepetitive use of the company's SFA tool.

As companies apply business process management and Six Sigma to itssales function, sales processes and knowledge capture can be improved.If a company's ability to increase knowledge improves, the company canthen begin to apply business intelligence to its sales model which inturn will lead to a greater competitive advantage and ability toconsistently increase revenue even if a salesperson should leave. SFAtools can be integrated with CRM tools to provide even greater knowledgeregarding customers. The combination of SFA tools, CRM tools and thenadding the capture of human capital quality data will lead to evengreater business intelligence and a company's ability to reduce costs,accurately predict revenue and further improve a company's overallperformance, and, ROI and EPS.

So what does all this previous history have to do with increasing thePartner Value of business partnerships and alliances through creating,managing evaluating, optimizing, creating industry standards andcreating knowledge and business intelligence? The creation andmanagement of alliance and business partnerships is one of the lastbastions of business that has a significant need to have its processesautomated, managed, and optimized. As the cost of direct salesorganization increases, the size of the workforce pool decrease and thebaby boomers retire, alliance and business partnerships will become moreand more critical to a company's success. As efficiencies have increasedin the areas of Helpdesk, CRM, and SFA, costs have been reduced andproductivity has increased. Most alliance, channel, and businesspartnership processes are not automated. Some companies use CRMsoftware, some use SFA software, some use paper, pencils, andspreadsheets and others use PRM software. The most efficient are, ofcourse, the automated solutions. Current trend and marketing informationindicate that PRM is the next support growth market. PRM vendors markettheir solutions with strong ROI benefits in the areas of increasedefficiency and decreased costs. PRM solutions, unlike CRM and SFAsolutions have been designed specifically to automate the creation andmanagement of alliances, channels, and business partnerships.

How have vendors automated partnering activities and what is left to bedone? First, vendors utilized the web to provide partners with fast andeasy access to commonly needed information as the web evolved. Partnerintranets were also deployed to provide the vendor's employees relevantpartner information. Typical information posted on these sites would becompany profiles, product and service information, key contacts, salespresentations and white papers. Vendors continued to increase theproductivity gains and cost reductions through automation byimplementing systems that allowed partners to configure and orderproducts online. Partners have also been provided with online support,web based training and certification testing.

PRM solutions were introduced in the last five to six years. Since theirintroduction, they have been used to further automate alliance, channel,and business partnership processes. Vendors are starting to organize andconsolidate their partners contact, pipe line and contract informationas well as, marketing information. They have been able to automate leaddistribution and campaign management processes. These systems haveincreased efficiency in managing partner information and processes, buthave little impact on improving partner effectiveness.

Vendors have been using legacy systems to track performance of theirresellers, distributors and their own reseller/distributor accountmanagers. Common practice with SIs and ISVs is to assign a percentage ofthe revenue based on the partner's level of contribution in developingnew sales or participation in closing an existing sale with the vendor'send user salesperson. This is a manual process and the assignment ofsales credit is arbitrary which can often cast doubt on thecreditability of performance data.

Vendors use PRM and other tools to gather partner feedback on vendorperformance, marketing issues, and products. Most vendors use surveys asthe primary method. This method can be compared to that of gatheringcustomer data as it applies to feedback using CRM tools. Vendors don'task their partners the why and how questions as part of the feedbackprocess. Results from the partner surveys are not compared to theresponses of what the vendor may answer to the same set of questions.Human capital quality data from partners is not captured.

Partners are not unlike end customers. They control what is sold and towhom. As the workforce shrinks, baby boomers retire and employees changecompanies, the partners' opinions will become more important. Surveysare most often conducted once a year. The survey results are seldomcompiled to show year over year comparisons with the exception of thequantitative data. Knowledge is not created. The evolving strategy hasstopped here.

How can the strategy continue? The same way that customer relationshipmanagement has, but with additional improvement. Business intelligenceand predictive modeling be applied to business partnerships, channelsand alliances.

The capture of all reusable knowledge regarding all aspects ofpartnership creation, management and performance will provide vendorswith the ability to improve effectiveness, optimize results, andsubstantially decrease costs in numerous areas through analysis ofhistorical data, current market trends and human capital qualitativedata. Business process management principles will be applied to weakareas of partnership programs to improve processes. Information will becontinuously captured so that partnerships can be optimized. Once apartnership or many partnerships are nearly optimized the data can beused to create business intelligence and enable the use of predictivemodeling.

What does the future hold? CRM, SFA, and PRM will be used to createknowledge. Initially, this will be done separately. Business processmanagement solutions will be used to improve processes along the way.All of the functional areas will include qualitative and quantitativefeedback loops to enable continuous feedback and create knowledge. Todaythey do not. The new system and method can allow data to be analyzed inCRM and SFA as it is for partnerships. Current market trends and theknowledge that is captured over time will be combined with research andfeedback and be used as business intelligence. Finally, all of thecomponents of CRM, SFA, and PRM will be combined so that predictivemodeling tools that use all available quantitative data, qualitativedata and current information will accurately predict revenueopportunities, revenues that will be generated, areas where costs can bedecreased, processes that can be improved and there root cause problemsacross cross-functional areas, and, what can be done to continuouslyoptimize company value. The new system or method can be used as the corecomponent of these combined processes so that a single PartnerValue—that can now be called Demand Value, can be calculated.

It will be critical for companies to capture useable knowledge thatconsiders all variables that can both aid and impact success. Thesevariables include both quantitative and qualitative variables. A strongeffectiveness strategy based on both of these variable sets may becomethe most important aspect of strong efficiency strategy.

Companies are faced with the ongoing task of integrating numerousdisparate systems in order to improve efficiency. In almost every facetof a business, there are cross-functional dependencies that can impactresults. It has been difficult to improve a department or function'sprocesses much less the cross-functional processes that the departmentdoes not own or control and yet, depends on. Business process managementtools are aiding in the fight. As companies are improving theirdepartment processes and some cross-functional processes, they seek toadd the creation of business intelligence as the next step.

However, not seen in the prior art is a comprehensive approach for thecreation, management, evaluation, optimization, creation of industrystandards, and, creation of knowledge and business intelligence througha closed system and method that includes a core system and method as itsfoundation for calculating a single Partner Value that represents analgorithm of all inputs. There has been no method wherein the continuousgeneration of partner value has been evaluated.

If a company uses channels and alliances to sell its products, thosechannels and alliances should have the same expertise as the company'sdirect sales organization. It should be transparent to the customer,whether the selling organization is the company's direct salesorganization or one of its partners. As a company creates value in itspartners, it will win more sales and accordingly generate more revenuesbecause it will increase its effective coverage in the marketplace.

Most companies use a standard channel and alliance model in theselection, negotiation and management of its channel and alliancepartners, as shown in FIG. 1. Most companies spend comparatively littletime selecting and coming to agreement with its partners. They choose tospend more of their initiatives in channel and alliance management,i.e., managing the relationship. Managing the relationship generally hasmeant driving revenue thought the channel.

Back in the early 1990s, partners would ask to sign up to resell aproduct and, if they had the financial and market coverage ability, theywere generally signed on as partners.

As the markets that were called on became saturated with a company'sproduct or its competitor's product, software and hardware margins haveshrunk, commissions to the direct sales force decreased and all salesbecame competitive. A company's direct sales force, including itsmanagement, have often tried to take a large percentage of all hardwareand software opportunities directly to the company and bypassed thepartner sales organization in order to increase margins and keep thedirect sales organization intact. This has been done because of thegreater expertise of the direct sales organization. Channel and alliancepartnerships are becoming partnerships in name only.

Partner selection has generally been comprised of quantitative data asto the size of the organization, geographic reach, and ability to payfor sold products. Little time is spent on qualitative data such asmanagement philosophy, company strategy, and hidden agendas. When acompany enters into a partnership, both companies should know as muchabout and agree upon the qualitative data as they do about thequantitative data in order such as management philosophy, companystrategy, and hidden agendas. When a company enters into a partnership,both companies should know as much about and agree upon the qualitativedata as they do about the quantitative data in order to generate partnervalue.

Partner agreements most often reflect the terms and conditions of theagreement between the companies and nothing more. As stated above, in atrue value generating partnership, it should be transparent to thecustomer whether he or she is working with a direct sales organizationor a channel or alliance organization. In order to generate value, anagreement needs to be more than just terms and conditions. It mustprovide for the tools required to generate value and thus revenue andalso for the accountability of the partnership.

Partner management is the interfacing with the channel and alliancepartner. After a partner agreement has been signed, partner managementhas meant the tracking of a partner's activities that will lead tosales. It includes such items as sales forecasting, lead follow up, andnumber of trained product consultants. It tracks the concerns of thecompany, namely, sales revenue. In order to generate partner value,which will lead to the generation of revenue, companies need toeffectively manage the relationship.

What is missing today in most channel and alliance partnerships is alack of improving the relationship and a lack of improving therelationship using a repeatable system and method. If a customer valuesthe relationship with its vendor, that customer will continually buyfrom that vendor. In the same way, if a partner sees that continuouslyimproving value in a channel or alliance relationship, that partner willstrive to generate revenues and improve the relationship.

Companies today are moving towards improving their channel and alliancerelationships. They are creating metrics to track channel and alliancepartner satisfaction. Typically, surveys are used to track some areas ofthe partner satisfaction. They most often ask questions about howsatisfied the partner is regarding the partner's relationship with thecompany as it relates to the tools and information that the partnerneeds to generate revenue.

Partner management is the primary way to improve the partnershiprelationship. The key to increasing partner value is to capture bothquantitative and qualitative metrics and then continuously improve thepartner selection and partner agreement processes as well as the partnermanagement processes. It has been identified that there are numerousrelationships between the components that make up selection, agreement,and management. As these sums of these three components of the partnerlife cycle are improved, partnership value increases and thus, theexpectations of the parties to the relationship will continue to be meton a long term basis. This will lead to meeting or surpassing theexpectations of the partnership. The most often used standard approachto partner management does not address the continuous improvement of thepartnership.

Further, when the system and method of calculating a Partner Value isused as it can apply to relationships with employees, partners,customers and sales people, and, when it also includes weighted valuesfor outside inputs such as market research, customer feedback, andproduct research, in other words, adding CRM, SFA, and research togetherwith PRM and the new system and method, and, then this Partner Value iscalculated, all areas that need to be improved in relationships areidentified and all of a companies potential product demand can becalculated. The new system and method is different from all predictivemodeling and partnering tools, technologies and systems and methods,because it also includes the unseen, qualitative variables of behaviorand culture as they impact need for demand and delivery.

So, it can be concluded that the new system and method allows companiesto improve the performance of partnerships and allows them to predictfuture performance. In addition, when the new system and method isapplied to company support and customer relationships and company salesand customer/prospect relationships, and when it includes weightedresearch variables, total company demand can be predicted. It is becauseof the similarity of process that the Demand Value can be calculated. InCRM, there is customer selection, customer agreement and customermanagement. In SFA, there is customer selection, customer agreement andcustomer management. These processes are very similar to partnerselection, partner agreement and partner management as far as theirability that when weighted and combined, can calculate a very accuratedemand value.

In reviewing the prior art regarding published and issued patents, thereare a number of patents that are somewhat related to the area ofbusiness relationship analysis in a traditional and commonly understoodsense. For example, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/379,188 filed byA. DiMarco discloses the use of a talent management system that helpsorganizations attract, develop and retain critical talent throughcomputer aided visualization and analysis of various criteria, includinga career view, a visual resume, an autobiography, self assessment,knowledge data, project experiences, etc., which makes it easier forpotential employers to assemble and analyze desired criteria regardingpotential employees. U.S. patent Ser. No. 10/034,820 filed by D. Weeksuses a variety of objects placed upon a table and manipulated by theuser to characterize and reveal certain personality traits which canthen be used to categorize which types of career roles are most suitedto the individual.

Further, U.S. patent Ser. No. 10/094,034 filed by C. Farnes, et al.discloses a method for assessing performance of a customer experience ofan organization. Only a customer survey is conducted, and this is notoptimized with a business organization survey. However, this method isonly directed for determining a model and evaluation of core competencyand it is not directed to graphing or developing a means for optimizingthe relationship between business partners. Another interesting patentdisclosure relating to this area is disclosed in U.S. patent applicationSer. No. 10/062,688 filed by M. Cohen, et al., which discloses acomputer-implemented method and system for assessing performance relateddata from a set of performers, but it does not analyze a businessrelationship from the view of both a vendor and vendee. U.S. patentapplication Ser. No. 10/028,309 filed by Holliday, et al. discloses asystem and process for evaluating a business entity's success indeveloping new business, but does not further analyze other aspects ofbusiness relationships.

Another business system related disclosure found in the prior art isU.S. Pat. No. 6,556,974 issued to D'Alessandro which discloses a methodfor evaluating a current business relationship, but this is only bytaking the surveys of employees and other persons to be evaluated in thesurvey which relate to various aspects of the business operations.Again, it does not evaluate or optimize a business partner relationship.

Still a further interesting patent disclosed in this area is U.S. patentapplication Ser. No. 10/279,159 filed by P. Morrel-Sammuels whichrelated to a method of providing employee assessment services includingnegotiating with an employer to administer surveys to employees andobtaining performance metrics relating to the employer's businessperformance. The survey is administered over the Internet. Similarly,U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,795 and 6,007,340 issued to P. Morrell-Sammuelsdiscloses an assessment tool which presents a variety of statements toan individual, and the individual is requested to analyze the statementsand provide a response for the purpose of determining the leadershipcapabilities of the individual. Other interesting patents in the priorart are U.S. Pat. No. 6,119,097 issued to D. Iberra which discusses asystem and method for quantification of human performance factors, andU.S. Pat. No. 4,627,818 issued to VonFellenberg which discloses a systemfor psychological testing of individuals which may assess the empathy,willingness to learn and sociability, as well as aggressiveness,selfishness, etc. can be determined. However, it should be noted thatnone of these systems disclosed relate to the creation, evaluation andoptimization of business partnerships.

Thus, nowhere in the prior is seen a system or method for creating,managing, evaluating, optimizing, creating industry standards andcreating knowledge and business intelligence of a business partnerrelationship based upon both quantitative and qualitative criteriasurveyed by both parties to the relationship.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

A system and method for determining a business partner value by creatingweighted metrics used for identifying, evaluating and selecting abusiness partner for a company; creating a business agreement andweighted metrics for evaluating the business agreement; creatingweighted metrics for ongoing management of the business partner; andmanaging the business partner by ongoing periodic evaluation of theweighted metrics for partner selection, agreement, and management. It isanticipated that both the company and the business partners willparticipate in the same evaluation on an ongoing basis; preferably onceper month or once per quarter rather than the usual annual review. Inone preferred embodiment of the present inventive process, the weightedmetrics of partner selection, agreement, and management may be reported,charted and graphed providing for both visual evaluation and side byside comparison of the perceptions of both company and business partnerfor optimization of the business relationship and prediction of futureperformance. It further can be applied in the same manner and using thesame methods to improve demand and customer support processes andaccurately predict corporate performance and results.

The present invention consists of utilizing a continuous processimprovement approach to generating partner value and when applied,demand value. In the present inventive process model, the method toimprove partner selection, partner agreement, and partner managementinvolves an ongoing, continuous process. This is a departure from thestandard partner life cycle process flow. Increased partner value isdriven by the continuous improvement and integration of these processesof selection, agreement and management because they include qualitativecultural and behavioral measurements that are gathered, calculated andcombined to reflect both sides of the partnership. In the same way,Customer Support and Sales Force Automation can use the presentinvention's principles to calculate its own Demand Value. When all threeare combined and weighted research results are added a total DemandValue can be calculated to predict future demand that includes allvariables. The obvious similarities between continuous partnerimprovement and customer support and sales force improvement is thatboth sides select, agree, manage, and create value in the relationship.The present invention provides these tactical benefits to companies inthe following areas:

Enabling accountability of the alliance and partner programs

Measuring the impact and results of any program, product or personnelchange

Understanding the underlying motivations of partners that negativelyimpact results

Gaining partner mindshare in order to optimize results

Gaining competitive advantage in the market and with the partners

Evaluating joint venture success probabilities and decrease jointventure risks

Capturing accurate and precise data that assists in complying withSarbanes-Oxley Act

Creating a sophisticated knowledgebase that will provide insight intothe impact of anticipated changes

Reducing costs associated with new alliances and new programs

In the present invention, the Partner Value calculation is generated byassigning percentage values for Partner Selection, Partner Agreement,and Partner Management where the total percentage equals 100 percent.Unlike the prior art, both business partners score the same weightedcriteria, which can be weighted differently because the vendor and thevendee's points of view will be different, providing for two sets ofdata. The average score or result for each module is multiplied by thepercentage of the Partner Value attribute for each and then the resultis added together to reflect a Partner Value percent or index of between0 and 1.000. This calculated percent equals the alliance or partnervalue. Unlike prior, more rudimentary systems, in one preferredembodiment of the present invention, each of the values for PartnerSelection, Partner Agreement, and Partner Management are calculated on aquarterly or monthly basis and not on an annual basis. Further, PartnerValue which has not been calculated previously will also be calculated.

For example, in a Partner Value Model where Partner Selection represents15 percent of the total partner value, the Partner Agreement represents10 percent of the total Partner Value and Partner Management represents75 percent of the total Partner Value the total value of therelationship equals 100 percent. As the partner value increases,revenues or the objective of the relationship will increase or bereached. The Partner Value Index can then be used to predict futureperformance. This would be done by determining the variance of thePartner Index Value against 1.000. For example, if the Partner ValueIndex was 0.9255, then the variance that can be used for predictionwould be +/−0.0745. This means that a future performance predictionwould be within the +/−range. This is significant because until thepresent method there has been no previous method to accurately predictfuture partner performance.

In the same way, as the Partner Value Model is applied to CRM and SFArelationships, an index value representing the relationships can becalculated so that areas for improvement can be identified and demandpredictions can become more accurate.

Metrics, or measurements, drive the continuous improvement process. Theyare captured in Partner Selection, Partner Agreement and PartnerManagement and then compared to the objectives and numeric values ineach of the modules. Weights are assigned to each metric so that theanalysis accurately reflects the state of the relationship and its totalvalue. The weights are assigned by both parties to the relationship sothat each perspective or viewpoint can be captured. The present systemand method allows for each company down to each individual employee orparty, to provide a weight to each metric. Improvements can then be madein the relationship in order to increase the Partner Value calculation.Examples of the metrics are found in the accompanying figures.

The same system and method can apply metrics, both quantitative that areused today and qualitative, which are not using this system and method,including behavioral and cultural metrics for CRM relationships and SFArelationships.

The metrics used to calculate Partner Value are defined based on theobjectives of the partnership and expected results for the partnership.This approach can be applied to any type of partnership or alliance. Themetrics are given an importance value by the partner with considerationby the initiator. The contribution value for each module is assignedthrough management agreement by the initiator of the partnership duringor prior to the selection process. The same is true for CRM and SFArelationships.

Data is collected from each touch point of the relationship. The presentsystem and method can identify cross-functional strengths and weaknessesin the processes for selection, agreement and management. It is uniquein that it allows for the analysis of variables between selection,agreement and management. For example, it may be identified as aselection weakness as a condition/result that a partner does not reachits performance objective. Another example, it may be that a partner'sperformance deteriorated as a result of late payments by the vendor andit had nothing to do with market conditions or lack of resources asoriginally thought. Examples of additional relationships are in theaccompanying figures.

Sample Partner Value Calculation

15 percent assigned value to Partner Selection

10 percent assigned value to Partner Agreement

75 percent assigned value to Partner Management

Partner Selection analysis result equals 0.7841 based on weightedaverage of metrics.

Partner Agreement analysis result equals 0.8504 based on weightedaverage of metrics.

Partner Management analysis result equals 0.9029 based on weightedaverage of metrics.

From this, the example Partner Value for the partnership may becalculated as follows:

No. of Partner Value Index Calcula- No. of No. of No. of Summary ReportIndex tions Groups Categories Criteria Partner Value Index 0.8799 921 833 220 Partner Selection 0.7841 298 6 11 86 Index Partner Agreement0.8504 190 1 7 35 Index Partner Management 0.9029 433 1 15 99 Index

The resulting Partner leaves for an almost twelve percent (12 percent)improvement in overall performance.

To ensure accuracy of data in reflecting all aspects of the partnershipin addition to weighting the measurements from different points of view,the present system or method can calculate the indexes for an unlimitednumber of inputs. The greater the number of inputs, the more accuratethe calculated data results.

If the Vendor and Partner each had 20 respondents, the number ofcalculations, at minimum, would be as follows:

Quarterly Annually 5 Years Partner Value Index 36840 147360 736800Partner Selection Index 11920 47680 238400 Partner Agreement Index 760030400 152000 Partner Management Index 17320 69280 346400

Using the above example and adding that the Vendor had twenty Partners,the number of calculations would approximate the following:

Quarterly Annually 5 Years Partner Value Index 73680 294720 1473600Partner Selection Index 23840 95360 476800 Partner Agreement Index 1520060800 304000 Partner Management Index 346400 138560 692800

As the volume of transaction calculations increases, the data willbecome more accurate and more precise. This will allow companies topredict performance, results and areas and processes that can impactthem. This information over time creates standard information regardingthe partnerships of the company and when combined with the informationof other companies, it creates industry standard information.

As the volume of information increases over time it also createsknowledge regarding partnerships, but will also provide informationregarding future performance and the selection, agreement and managementof future partners. The same holds true with CRM Relationships and SFARelationships. Customer company personnel leave their company for betteropportunities or to retire and the present system will allow for thecapture of not only quantitative account information but alsoqualitative information including insights into the customer's companyculture and behavior.

In the above example, the partner achieved 95 percent of the revenueexpectation and yet, the Partner Value index is only 0.8799. This meansthat the partnership is 12 percent short of optimized—meaning, if theappropriate improvements are made to the partnership, the revenue orexpectation number could increase to over 100 percent. In hard dollars,if the expected plan was $20 million, revenues could increase by over $1million.

The model is a significant invention because it is the first system andmethod that can be applied to analyze and optimize most any alliance orbusiness partnership between two business entities. It was determinedthrough our research and collective experience that there are bothdirect and indirect issues and conditions that can impact the effectivecreation and performance of an alliance, channel or other businesspartnerships. There has been no effective process that accurately andprecisely measures and calculates a value for all information thatidentifies these issues and conditions. There also has been no method ofcollecting reusable alliance and business partnership knowledge orbusiness intelligence data for alliances and business partnerships. Thedrill downs identify every area where improvement is needed or therelationship is at risk of non-performance. The impact of any change inpersonnel, policy, program, or process can be accurately measured. Asthe database of information grows over time, knowledge of all that hasbeen added, changed or tried will be generated so as current managementleaves and/or retires, their knowledge will remain. The same holds truefor relationships that are created and measured for CRM or SFA. Thepresent system and method can allow for an infinite number ofcalculations for a given company to company relationship. For indexvalues that are outside of business partnerships, alliances andchannels, the index value is called the Demand Value Index.

Each component also has its own health and optimization opportunitycalculations. The component calculation reflects the measurement of theaggregate quantitative and qualitative criteria inputs from both thevendor and partner. As identified areas are continuously improved,partner optimization will take place causing an increase in performanceand results.

Quantitative criteria calculations reflect a partnership's measurementagainst performance. Qualitative calculations reflect the measurementsof criteria that impact partner performance. Qualitative measurementsare key to understanding the relationship side of the partnership. It isespecially important in highly competitive markets where products andcommissions are becoming more uniform. Partners are increasingly seekingthings that make life easier and better relationships with theirvendors. Partners have a choice of vendors that they represent. This ismore true for customers.

Additional information provided by the present system is summary dataregarding the partnership. In the below examples, index calculationshave been generated for the labeled aspects. Some of the attachedreports provide comparisons between vendor and vendee that demonstratethe differences in perceptions when the parties of the partnership areasked the same questions. Further, the weights of the variables to bemeasured as to their priority and importance can increase or decreasethe variance between the responses. The present system is unique in itsability to provide detailed information regarding these variances. Forthe first time, vendors will be able to understand how differentcomponents of the partnership impact the results of the partnership.Seemingly disparate variables can be measured and compared against andacross selection, agreement, and management of the partnership whereeach calculation will have an impact on the optimization of thepartnership.

Partner Partner Partner Partner Index Partner Summary Value SelectionAgreement Management Partner Quota Report Index Index Index IndexAchievement System Integrators 0.8522 0.9412 0.8243 0.8452 0.8872Independent Software 0.8947 0.8881 0.8765 0.8223 0.9124 Vendors ChannelResellers 0.8669 0.8259 0.8455 0.8433 0.8616 Referral Partners 0.75070.7878 0.8101 0.8122 0.7443

FIG. 24 shows report showing the comparison of the vendor perceptioncompared to the partner perception over multiple periods.

Additional detailed reports of the present invention are in the figuresincluding detailed input and findings information.

Thus, it is one primary object of the present invention to provide acontinuous business partner generation, evaluation, optimization,industry standard creation, and knowledge and business intelligencecreation system which utilizes a set of metrics in order to create aPartner Selection value.

It is yet an additional primary object of the present invention toprovide a continuous business partner evaluation, optimization, industrystandard creation, and knowledge and business intelligence creationsystem which utilizes a set of metrics in order to create a PartnerManagement value.

A further primary object of the present invention is to provide acontinuous business partner evaluation, optimization, industry standardcreation, and knowledge and business intelligence creation system whichutilizes a set of metrics in order to create a Partner Agreement value.

Still an additional primary object of the present invention is toprovide a continuous business partner evaluation, optimization, industrystandard creation and knowledge and business intelligence creationsystem which utilizes a weighted Partner Selection, Partner Agreementand Partner Management values which may be weighted in order to createan overall Partner Value rating which provides a variance gapcalculation between a fully optimized business partnership and the stateof the current partnership.

Yet a further primary object of the present invention is to provide acontinuous business partner evaluation, optimization, industry standardcreation and knowledge and business intelligence creation system whichutilizes a comprehensive set of metrics for each of the PartnerSelection, Partner Management and Partner Agreement and Partner Valueratings, each of which are evaluated on a quarterly or more often basis,and not only on an annual basis.

Still a further primary object of the present invention is to provide acontinuous business partner evaluation, optimization, industry standardcreation and knowledge and business intelligence creation system whichmay chart or graph by computer each of the Partner Selection, PartnerManagement and Partner Agreement and Partner Value ratings over a periodof time for the purposes of allowing the business partners to optimizetheir relationship.

Yet an additional primary object of the present invention is to providea continuous business partner evaluation, optimization, industrystandard creation and knowledge and business intelligence creationsystem which evaluates, charts and graphs data for each of PartnerSelection, Partner Management and Partner Agreement and Partner Valueratings, by both parties to the relationship, and not just the customeror vendee.

Still a further primary object of the present invention is to provide acontinuous business partner evaluation, optimization, industry standardcreation, and knowledge and business intelligence creation system whichcan be used in the same method to calculate a same value for thepartnership value between a company support organization and itscustomers. The only difference between collecting and calculating suchdata for this CRM relationship is the label which is called CRM ValueIndex.

Yet an additional primary object of the present invention is to providea continuous business partner evaluation, optimization, industrystandard creation, and knowledge and business intelligence creationsystem which can be used in the same method to calculate a same valuefor the partnership value between a company sales organization and itscustomers. The only difference between collecting and calculating suchdata for this SFA relationship is the label which is called SFA ValueIndex.

Still a further additional primary object of the present invention is toprovide a continuous business partner evaluation, optimization, industrystandard creation, and knowledge and business intelligence creationsystem which can be used in the same method to calculate a same valuefor the partnership value between a company sales organization and itscustomers. The only difference between collecting and calculating suchdata for this SFA relationship is the label which is called SFA ValueIndex.

Yet an additional primary object of the present invention is to providea continuous business partner evaluation, optimization, industrystandard creation, and knowledge and business intelligence creationsystem which can create industry standards when the collected dataresults from the companies within an industry are combined and averagedto present average industry partnership results.

Further as a primary object of the present invention to provide acontinuous business partner evaluation, optimization, industry standardcreation, and knowledge and business intelligence creation system whichcreates re-useable knowledge and business intelligence data that becomesincreasingly more accurate over time as more and more additionalinformation is collected and processed.

Still as a primary object of the present invention to provide acontinuous business partner evaluation, optimization, industry standardcreation and knowledge and business intelligence creation system whichevaluates, charts and graphs data for each of Partner Selection, PartnerManagement and Partner Agreement and Partner Value ratings, by bothparties to the relationship, and not just the customer or vendee.

In a specific implementation, a process for determining business partnervalue includes implementing the steps of providing a company, creatingmetrics for selection for a business partner for the company, evaluatingpotential business partners based on the business partner metrics,selecting a business partner based at least in part on the metrics forcreating a business agreement, creating a business agreement, creatingmetrics for the business agreement, creating metrics for managing thebusiness partner, and managing the business partner by an ongoingperiodic evaluation of the metrics for the partner selection, partneragreement and partner management.

The metrics for partner selection may be a weighted value. The metricsfor partner agreement may be a weighted value. The metrics for partnermanagement may be a weighted value. The metrics for partner selection,partner agreement, and partner management may add up to one hundredpercent.

The business partner value may be determined by the company on at leasta quarterly basis. The business partner value may be determined on atleast a monthly basis. The business partner value may be determined byboth company and business partner at least on a quarterly basis. Thebusiness partner value may be determined by both company and businesspartner at least on a monthly basis. The business partner value may bedetermined by both company and business partner on at least a quarterlybasis and may be plotted on a graph for evaluation purposes. At leastone of the metrics for partner selection may be plotted an a graph on atleast a quarterly basis for evaluation purposes.

At least one of the metrics for partner agreement may be plotted on agraph on at least a quarterly basis for evaluation purposes. At leastone of the metrics for partner management may be plotted on a graph onat least a quarterly basis for evaluation purposes. In animplementation, both the metrics for partner selection by company and bythe business partner are plotted together for evaluation purposes. Boththe metrics for partner selection by both company and by the businesspartner may be plotted together for evaluation purposes. Both themetrics for partner management by both company and the business partnermay be plotted together for evaluation purposes.

In a specific implementation, a system for determining a businesspartner value includes a system module for determining a partnerselection value, a system module for determining a partner agreementvalue, a system module for determining a partner management value; and asystem module for determining a partner value.

The partner selection system module may further include means forselecting metrics for partner selection criteria. The partner managementmodule may further include means for selecting metrics for partnermanagement criteria. The partner agreement module may further includemeans for selecting metrics for partner agreement criteria. The partnervalue module may further include means for calculating a partner valuebased upon the values provided by the systems modules for the partnerselection, partner management and partner agreement.

These and other objects and advantages of the present invention can bereadily derived from the following detailed description of theattachments and drawings taken in conjunction with the accompanyingdrawings present herein and should be considered as within the overallscope of the invention.

Other objects, features, and advantages of the present invention willbecome apparent upon consideration of the following detailed descriptionand the accompanying drawings, in which like reference designationsrepresent like features throughout the figures.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a flow chart of a typical business partner relationship (priorart).

FIG. 2 is a flow chart of the present invention showing a system whereinpartner Selection, Partner Agreement and Partner Management valuescreate a total Partner Value for overall assessment of a partnerrelationship.

FIG. 3A is a diagram with a central flow chart from FIG. 2 which showsthe proper interrelation with Alliance Knowledge Base and Alliance(Industry) Corporate Standards.

FIG. 3B shows a diagram with a flow chart in the center of the diagramshowing interrelationships with a second flow chart that predictscorporate requirements and results in a continuous closed loop. Also onthis diagram is an outside flowchart of research and market information.

FIG. 4 shows a collection of combined industry knowledge from industriesso that alliance information may be utilized across industries through asingle business repository of knowledge.

FIG. 5 shows a table of a totals page for a New Invention DataCalculator Process

FIG. 6 shows a table of a totals page for Partner Selection.

FIGS. 7A-7B show a detail table of a Strategic Fit group for PartnerSelection.

FIG. 8 shows a detail table of a Strategic Fit for Partner Resources.

FIG. 9 shows a detail table of a Strategic Fit for QuantitativeCriteria.

FIG. 10 shows a detail table of Financial Data.

FIG. 11 shows a detail table of Partnership Experience.

FIG. 12 shows a detail table of Geographic Coverage.

FIGS. 13A-13B shows a total and detail table for Vendor Input andPartner Total of Partner Agreement.

FIG. 14 shows a detail table for Partner Input for Partner Agreement.

FIG. 15 shows a totals page for Partner Management.

FIGS. 16A-16C shows totals for Vendor/Partner Results for PartnerManagement.

FIGS. 17A-17B shows a detail table for Vendor Input for PartnerManagement.

FIGS. 18A-18B shows a detail table for Vendor/Partner Input for PartnerManagement.

FIG. 19A-19B shows a detail table for Partner Input for PartnerManagement.

FIGS. 20A-20B shows a detail table for attachment of a new inventionshowing its ability to analyze cross functional and cross index results.

FIGS. 21A-21B shows a detail table for Partner Selection across impactdetail.

FIGS. 22A-22B shows a detail table for Partner Agreement cross impactdetail.

FIGS. 23A-23B shows a detail table for Partner Management crossfunctional impact against selection and agreement.

FIG. 24 shows a report showing the comparison of the vendor perceptioncompared to the partner perception over multiple periods.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

Shown in FIG. 1 is a simple, standard flow chart 10 which illustrates atypical partnership evaluation process at various process stages. Acompany will identify that it has a need for a partner or alliance in astep 12. The company will typically loosely define these parameters. Anumber of possible partners will be identified, evaluated or assessed,and selected for the possibility of forming a partnership in a step 14.One or more possible partners will be approached for the purpose offorming a partnership and negotiations will begin with regard to pricingand terms in a step 16. Step 16 will typically result in a partner beingselected and the negotiated terms being reduced into a written contract.Once a partnership has been formed, a company will typically looselymanage that partnership with infrequent evaluations over a period oftime, and reviews will typically occur on an annual basis in a step 18.If it appears that the partner selected is of limited value, or the needfor such a partnership no longer exists, then the partnership willterminate, typically on terms predefined in a written agreement in astep 20. Although this process is very simple and often proceeds in asomewhat unorganized fashion, it has been the typical role model formany companies in the past.

Shown in FIG. 2 is a flow chart of an implementation of the presentinvention. In a partner value model 20, a comprehensive needs assessment22 is initiated by the company, then a partner selection 24 processoccurs, and when this process is complete, a partner management 28 canbecome linked both to a partner agreement criteria 26 and partnerselection criteria 24, so that a resulting overall partner value 29becomes a regular assessment of all of these criteria. When there is nofurther need for the partnership or partner value 29 becomes toodeficient to the company, then the partner relationship is terminated bycompany 32. In any case, since partner selection 24 is continuallymonitored in conjunction with partner agreement 26 and the partnermanagement criteria of 28, this allows for the optimization of partnervalue model 20.

Shown in FIG. 3A is an Enhanced Core Partner Value Model 30 whichconsists of a Core Partner Value Model 32 whose results generate anAlliance Knowledge Base 34 through the Core Partner Value Model's 32 useover time. The Alliance Knowledge Base 34, when combined with theAlliance Knowledge Base's of other companies in the some industry and isaveraged, creates an Alliance and Industry-Corporate Standards 36database.

FIG. 3B shows a diagram with a flow chart in the center of the diagramshowing interrelationships with a second flow chart that predictscorporate requirements and results in a continuous closed loop. Also onthis diagram is an outside flowchart of research and market information.

FIG. 4 shows a collection of combined industry knowledge from industriesso that alliance information may be utilized across industries through asingle business repository of knowledge. A Business knowledge base 42applies to all industries and is linked directly to individualindustries, including but not limited to: technology 44, telecom 46,pharmacology 48, biotech 50, financial services 52, supply chainbusinesses 54, legal services 56 and manufacturing 58. The centralrepository allows all industries worldwide to share and utilize allianceand partnership best practices and knowledge.

FIG. 5 shows a roll up summary table showing index value totals forPartner Value, Partner Selection, Partner Agreement, and PartnerManagement indicating a weighted category value against Partner Value.It further totals Partner Selection weighted category totals, PartnerAgreement weighted category totals, and Partner Management weightedcategory totals.

FIG. 6 shows Partner Selection weighted category totals. Variouscategories can be used to determine whether or not a partner should beselected. In this example, strategic fit, partnership experience,financial data, geographic coverage, partner resources, andnonquantitative criteria are used. FIG. 6 further shows a strategic fitcriteria table 60 which is used to monitor the potential alliancepartner's strategic fit by the company utilizing the present inventionto identify, assess, and select an alliance partner. Strategic Fitcriteria may include, but is not limited to, the partner against companyshort and long term goals and objectives; the partner's potential forassisting the company in maximizing sales revenue, reducing salesexpenses, increasing profitability, and optimizing sales cycle. Each ofthese items may have sub-items all of which are weighted, as are theitems.

FIGS. 7A-7B show Partner Selection, Strategic Fit category detail andweighted totals. FIGS. 7A and 7B show a partnership experience criteriatable 70 a and 70 b which is used to determine the potential alliancepartner's partnership experience by the company utilizing the presentinvention to identify, assess, and select an alliance partner.Partnership experience may include, but is not limited to, industrial,product, and channel experience; minimal channel conflict; meets or metrevenue and profit targets for vendor(s); and with customer and prospectbase. Each of these items is also weighted.

FIG. 8 shows Partner Selection, Partner Resources weighted categorydetails and totals. FIG. 8 shows a quantitative metrics score sheet 80which is used to evaluate quantitative facts and figures regarding acompany's vendors and business partners, including, but not limited to:increase in new partners, new partner effectiveness, sales revenuesversus planned revenues, partner sales increase, actual versus forecastsales, forecast accuracy, sales by customers, both new and existing,sale accuracies, partner payments, lead follow through of contacts,report partner, prospects with and without leads, sales with and withoutleads or through the marketing program, marketing program costs forecastand actual, conflict data including number of conflicts, reported,resolved and outstanding; partner costs, including support, customercosts, pre-sales costs, costs by manager by sales, administration costs,inventory reduction savings and business plan accuracy ratings.

FIG. 9 shows Partner Selection, Partner nonquantitative categoryweighted details and totals. Criteria in this instance which werereported were: channel account manager effectiveness, teameffectiveness, quantity of disputes, satisfaction of disputeresolutions, quantity and quality of leads. The percentage gap inperception between vendor and partner or company is also shown. In thisrespect, the vendor is readily attuned to areas where the gap inperception in the greatest and the vendor may direct its attention toremedying deficiencies perceived by the vendee or company. Also, whetherand how much any improvement is needed is given in an easy to understandformat. It is only when there is no gap and the perceptions are eithercorrectly aligned or very closely aligned that the business partnerrelationship is most capable of improving. With a very quickunderstanding, the vendor may readily determine where it must spend themost time and resources in creating the most improvement in therelationship, and where time and resources may be wasted because thecompany or vendee is already well satisfied with the vendor'sperformance.

FIG. 10 shows Partner Selection, Partner financial data categoryweighted details and totals.

FIG. 11 shows Partner, Selection, Partnership Experience data categoryweighted details and totals.

FIG. 12 shows Partner Selection, Geographic Coverage data categoryweighted details and totals.

FIGS. 13A-13B is a table that shows Partner Agreement category totalsand Partner Agreement, vendor input detail, totals, partner weightedscore and totals and additional items to be considered for additionalconsideration.

FIG. 14 shows Partner Agreement, Partner Input details and totals.

FIG. 15 shows Partner Management Category totals.

FIGS. 16A-16C shows a table of Partner Management that showsvendor/partner data totals results against expected and additionalcriteria to be considered for addition.

FIGS. 17A-17B shows a detail table of Vendor Partner Input detail andtotals by category.

FIGS. 18A-18B shows a table of Vendor/Management that showsvendor/partner data totals results against expected and additionalcriteria to be considered for addition.

FIGS. 19A-19B is a table that shows Partner Management, Partner Inputdetail and category totals.

FIGS. 20A-20B shows a table of Partner Management criteria comparedagainst possible cross functional impacts.

FIGS. 21A-21B shows a table of Partner Selection categories measuredagainst possible Partner Management impacts.

FIGS. 22A-22B shows a table of Partner Agreement categories measuredagainst possible Partner Management impacts.

FIGS. 23A-23B is a table that shows Partner Management criteria measuredagainst cross functional details for Partner Selection and PartnerAgreement.

The following report shows a practical method for an actual industrialsituation.

Sample 1: Attachment of New Invention that Creates Industry Standardsfor Business Partnerships and Alliances

The attached figures incorporated herein may be used in conjunction withmultiple companies allows the new invention to create standardsinformation for the included industry. This is because the variablesmeasured are the some for each company included in the industry and bycombining and then averaging the results data for all companies includedin an industry set will result in an industry or standard average forthe measured industry.

In a specific implementation, a feature of invention is a repeatableprocess for the capture of weighted and categorized measurements forPartner Selection, Partner Agreement and Partner Management that willbenchmark current partnership states, identify specific areas forpartnership improvement, establish standards and essential data andreengage partnerships that will provide the ability to optimizepartnership results through continuous partner life cycle processimprovement. This process will result in the Partner Value calculationthat measures partnership health and opportunity. An additional resultof this engagement will be the reengagement of program partners. Overtime, the collection and processing of the data and when combined withthe results data of other companies in the same industry will result inindustry standards for the included industry. Over time, the collectionand processing of the data will allow companies to improve alliance andbusiness partnership results and create knowledge and businessintelligence data that will accurately predict future results.

Process

Pre-Meeting: Identify and schedule management, staff and partners forkick-off meeting using kickoff-meeting criteria below.

Kick-Off Meeting Overview

The purpose of the kick-off meeting is to assign tasks andconfirm/create the following:

Create Mission Statement for project and, under a separate heading, forpartners

Announce project to partners and press

Project objectives

Project schedule

Project roles and responsibilities

Identification of customer resources for project coordination (projectmanager)

Executive sponsor

Responsible management and staff

Select partners for input, analysis and feedback

Other resources required to gather selected sell through segmentinformation.

Kick-Off Meeting Process

Create Mission Statement for project and, under a separate heading, forpartners

Create announcement for partners and press

Review organizational charts for sell through segment

Engage partners for input collection, analysis and feedback

Engage company organization touch points

Review/gather measurements to be collected

Assign tasks to management and staff to gather information and dataregarding selection, agreement and management of sell through segment

Assign tasks to staff to gather information and data from selectedpartners regarding partner's selection process, partnership agreementsand management of partnership by company

Meeting Set One: Partner Selection Optimization Process Development

The purpose of meeting set one is to establish, define, select, measureand make repeatable the company's partner selection process so thatpartner selection optimization can be achieved. It will include a reviewof documentation and processes regarding the partner selection and theidentification and selection of partner selection criteria andcategories and the assignment of weights for the identified and selectedmeasurements. It will include customer's partner selection policies,practices, processes, applicable historical information and qualitativeinputs. A number of interviews will be conducted with responsiblemanagement and staff.

Meeting Set One Process

1. Collect/Review Paper and Electronic Information

Paper Documents

Electronic Documents

Website Information including PRM solutions

2. Interview selected management and staff that have input into thedesign of partner selection processes. Discuss, select and assigncriteria and categories and gather input as to the weighting of criteriaand categories. Capture inputs regarding qualitative criteria andcategories.

Partner Selection criteria

Partner Selection categories

Partner Selection groups

Ranking scales

Weighting scales

Add customer selection criteria and categories

Improvement opportunities to be measured

3. Interview selected management and staff that have input into theidentification and selection of potential partners. Discuss, select andassign criteria and categories and gather input as to the weighting ofcriteria and categories. Capture inputs regarding qualitative criteriaand categories.

Partner Selection criteria

Partner Selection categories

Selection groups

Ranking scales

Weighting scales

Add customer selection criteria and categories

Improvement opportunities to be measured

Input appropriate information from selected partners

Determine method and processes required for the continued collection ofdata inputs from both company and, partners, if required

4. Design report for Partner Selection

Capture information from management and staff for input into partnerselection tool

Calculate partner selection benchmarks

Calculate partner value input measurement

Design partner selection reports, charts and diagrams that identifiesselection process watch, re-measure and optimize opportunities

Meeting Set Two: Partner Agreement Optimization Process Development

The purpose of meeting set two is to establish, define, select, measureand make repeatable the company's partner agreement processes and toallow for the creation and measurement of customized partner agreementsand processes so that partner agreement optimization can be achieved. Itwill include a review of documentation and processes regarding thecompany's partner agreement, the selection of partner agreement criteriaand categories, assignment of weights for the identified and selectedmeasurements and the creation of required processes and other agreementinformation to be measured. It will include customer's partner agreementpolicies, practices, processes, contracts, applicable historicalinformation, other related data, and qualitative inputs. A number ofinterviews will be conducted with responsible management, staff andpartners.

Meeting Set Two Process

1. Collect/Review Paper and Electronic Information

Paper Documents

Electronic Documents

Website Information including PRM solutions

2. Interview selected management and staff that have input into thedesign and creation of partner agreements. Discuss, select and assigncriteria and categories, and, gather input as to the weighting ofcriteria and categories. Capture inputs regarding qualitative criteriaand categories. Determine responsible staff required to provide addedagreement processes.

Partner Agreement criteria

Partner Agreement categories

Partner Agreement groups

Ranking scales

Weighting scales

Create additional standards and supporting processes, and, gain initialmanagement approval

Add customer agreement criteria, categories and measurements for createdprocesses

Determine method and processes required for the continued collection ofdata inputs from both company and partners

Improvement opportunities to be measured

3. Interview selected partner's management that has responsibility andinput for the negotiation of the partnership. Discuss, select and assigncriteria and categories, and, gather input as to the weighting ofcriteria and categories. Capture inputs regarding qualitative criteriaand categories. This step cannot be started until additional processesand inputs are gathered and agreed upon in previous step two (2).

Partner Agreement criteria

Partner Agreement categories

Partner Agreement groups

Ranking scales

Weighting scales

Collect partner agreement inputs, criteria, categories and feedback

Determine method and processes required for the continued collection ofdata inputs from partners

Improvement opportunities to be measured

4. Review results of combined inputs including, criteria, categories,weights and processes from both company and partners. Review, formalizeand approve additional processes and related measurements.

Design Master Partnership Agreement from agreed upon results

Design processes to enable modification of agreement as required duringpartner negotiations.

5. Design report for Partner Agreement

Capture information from management and staff for input into partneragreement tool

Capture information from partner management for input into partneragreement tool

Calculate partner agreement benchmarks

Calculate partner value input measurement

Meeting Set Three: Partner Management Optimization Process Development

The purpose of meeting set three is to establish, define, select,measure and make repeatable the company's partner management processesso that partner management optimization can be achieved. It will includea review of documentation and processes regarding the company's partnermanagement processes, the selection of company partner managementagreement criteria and categories, assignment of weights for theidentified and selected measurements and the creation of requiredprocesses and other management information to be measured. It willinclude customer's partner management policies, practices, processes,applicable historical information, other related data, and qualitativeinputs. A number of interviews will be conducted with responsiblemanagement, staff and partners.

Meeting Set Three Process

1. Collect/Review Paper and Electronic Information

Paper Documents

Electronic Documents

Website Information including PRM solutions

2. Interview selected management and staff that have input into thedesign and creation of partner management strategies. Discuss, selectand assign criteria and categories, and, gather input as to theweighting of criteria and categories. Capture inputs regardingqualitative criteria and categories. Determine responsible staffrequired to provide added partner management processes and measurements.

Partner Management criteria

Partner Management categories

Partner Management groups

Ranking scales

Weighting scales

Create additional management standards and supporting processes, and,gain initial company management approval

Add customer management criteria, categories and measurements forcreated processes Improvement opportunities to be measured

Determine method and processes required for the continued collection ofdata inputs from both company and partners

3. Interview selected partner's management that has responsibility forthe negotiation of the partnership agreement, continued management andsupport of the partnership, achievement of results, and responsible forpartner's long-term business planning. Discuss, select and assigncriteria and categories, and, gather input as to the weighting ofcriteria and categories. Capture inputs regarding qualitative criteriaand categories. This step cannot be started until additional processesand inputs are gathered and agreed upon in previous step two (2).

Partner Management criteria

Partner Management categories

Partner Management groups

Ranking scales

Weighting scales

Collect partner management inputs, criteria, categories and feedback

Determine method and processes required for the continued collection ofdata inputs from partners

Improvement opportunities to be measured

4. Review results of partner management combined inputs including,criteria, categories, weights and processes from both company andpartners.

Review, formalize, and approve additional processes and relatedmeasurements.

Design processes to enable modification of agreement as required duringpartner negotiations that may be measured and are important to PartnerManagement.

5. Design report for Partner Management

Capture information from management and staff for input into partnermanagement tool

Capture information from partner management for input into partneragreement tool

Calculate partner management benchmarks

Calculate partner value input measurement

Deliver partner management tool, charts and diagrams

Deliver report that identifies management process which, re-measure andoptimize opportunities

Although in the foregoing detailed description the present invention hasbeen described by reference to various specific embodiments, it is to beunderstood that modifications and alterations in the structure andarrangement of those embodiments other than those specifically set forthherein may be achieved by those skilled in the art and that suchmodifications and alterations are to be considered as within the overallscope of this invention. This description of the invention has beenpresented for the purposes of illustration and description. It is notintended to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise formdescribed, and many modifications and variations are possible in lightof the teaching above. The embodiments were chosen and described inorder to best explain the principles of the invention and its practicalapplications. This description will enable others skilled in the art tobest utilize and practice the invention in various embodiments and withvarious modifications as are suited to a particular use. The scope ofthe invention is defined by the following claims.

1. (canceled)
 2. A method of graphing by computer a partnership value ofa partnership between a partner and a company, comprising: creating apartner management index, wherein the index comprises a plurality ofgroups, each group comprises a plurality of categories, and eachcategory comprises a plurality of criteria to be rated during anevaluation of at least one of the partner or the company; assigning aweight to the index and to each group, category, and criteria so thatthe index is associated with an index weight, and each group isassociated with a group weight, each category is associated with acategory weight, and each criteria is associated with a criteria weight,wherein the weights indicate an importance of the index, group,category, and criteria to at least one of the company or the partner;rating the criteria in each category during a first evaluation of atleast one of the company or the partner at a first time, whereby eachcriteria in a category is associated with a criteria rating; multiplyingeach criteria rating with the associated criteria weight to generate aplurality of criteria scores, whereby each criteria in the category isassociated with a criteria score; summing the associated criteria scoresin each category of criteria to generate a plurality of criteria scoretotals, whereby each category is associated with a criteria score total;multiplying each criteria score total of each category with theassociated category weight to generate a plurality of category scores,whereby each category is associated with a category score; summing theassociated category scores in each group of the index to generate aplurality of category score totals, whereby each group is associatedwith a category score total; multiplying the associated category scoretotal with the associated group weight to generate a plurality of groupscores, whereby each group is associated with a group score; summing theassociated group scores to generate a value for the partner managementindex; and graphing by a computer a first value of the partnermanagement index, wherein the first value is the value for the partnermanagement index at the first time, and the first value indicates apartnership value of the partnership between the partner and the companyat the first time.
 3. The method of claim 2 further comprising: ratingthe criteria in each category during a second evaluation of the partnerof the company at a second time; repeating the steps of multiplying eachcriteria rating, summing the associated criteria scores, multiplyingeach criteria score total, summing the associated category scores,multiplying the associated category score total, and summing theassociated group scores; graphing by the computer a second value of thepartnership management index, wherein the second value is the value ofthe partner management index at the second time, and the second valueindicates a partnership value of the partnership between the partner andthe company at the second time; and graphing by the computer a line fromthe first value of the partnership management index to the second valueof the partnership management index.
 4. The method of claim 3 wherein aperiod of time between the first time and the second time is about onemonth.
 5. The method of claim 3 wherein a period of time between thefirst time and second time is about four months.
 6. The method of claim3 wherein at the first time, the weights assigned to the index, groups,categories, and criteria are the same as the weights assigned to theindex, groups, categories, and criteria at the second time.
 7. Themethod of claim 3 wherein a difference between the first value and thesecond value indicates a change in the partnership value of thepartnership.
 8. The method of claim 2 wherein one of a criteria of theplurality of criteria comprises after sale support satisfaction.
 9. Themethod of claim 2 wherein one of a criteria of the plurality of criteriacomprises product delivery satisfaction.
 10. A system comprising: afirst evaluation spreadsheet comprising a plurality of rows and columns,wherein each row is associated with a partner evaluation criterion andthe first evaluation spreadsheet has the plurality of rows associatedwith a plurality of different partner evaluation criteria, for each row,a first column of the row indicates a partner evaluation criterion, asecond column of the row indicates a first score of the partnerevaluation criterion, a third column of the row indicates a second scoreof the partner evaluate criterion, a fourth column of the row indicatesa first weighting for the partner evaluation criteria of the row, and afifth column of the row indicates a product of the sum of the second andthird columns for the row and the first weighting for the partnerevaluation criteria of the row, wherein only one of the second or thirdcolumns is occupied by a value, the second and third columns areadjacent to each other, and the first score is different from the secondscore; a second summary spreadsheet comprising a plurality of rows andcolumns, and a first cell in the second spreadsheet that is coupled byan arithmetic operation to sums of the second and third columns for theplurality of rows of the first spreadsheet; and a computer, coupled toreceive input from the second spreadsheet including the first cell,wherein the computer charts a report using the input from the secondspreadsheet.
 11. The system of claim 10 wherein the first evaluationspreadsheet comprises a plurality of different partner evaluationcategories, each category comprising a second weighting and a set of theplurality of rows is associated with the plurality of different partnerevaluation criteria, and each of the plurality of rows associated withthe plurality of different partner evaluation criteria is a member of atmost one partner evaluation category.
 12. The system of claim 10 whereinthe first score is a first number, and when the second column isoccupied by a value, this value is the first number.
 13. The system ofclaim 10 wherein each row of the first evaluation spreadsheet comprisesa sixth column, the sixth column indicates a third score, different fromthe first and second scores, wherein the sixth column is arrangedbetween the third and fourth columns, and the first score is a firstnumber, the second score is a second number, greater than the firstnumber, and the third score is a third number, greater than the secondnumber.
 14. The system of claim 10 wherein for each row, the second orthird columns that is not occupied by a value is assigned a zero for thecalculation of the sum of the second and third columns for that row. 15.The system of claim 10 wherein the first and second spreadsheets areelectronic spreadsheets.
 16. A method employing indexes to calculate avalue of a business partnership and to facilitate optimization of thevalue of the business partnership, the method comprising: creating apartner selection index, a partner agreement index, and a partnermanagement index, wherein each index comprises a plurality of groups,each group comprises a plurality of categories, and each categorycomprises a plurality of criteria to be rated during an evaluation of apartner; associating weights to the indexes, groups, categories, andcriteria, whereby each index is associated with an index weight, eachgroup is associated with a group weight, each category is associatedwith a category weight, and each criteria is associated with a criteriaweight; calculating a first value for a first partner selection index,wherein the first partner selection index is associated with a firstpartner, and the first partner is selected based on the first value;calculating a second value for a first partner agreement index, whereinthe first partner agreement index is associated with the first partner;after the calculating a first value for a first partner selection indexand the calculating a second value for a first partner agreement index,collecting information during a first evaluation of the first partner,wherein the collected information is collected using a spreadsheet,wherein the spreadsheet comprises first and second columns, wherein thefirst column comprises the plurality of criteria and the second columncomprises a plurality of criteria ratings, whereby each criteria ratingis associated with a criteria; calculating a third value for a firstpartner management index based on the collected information during thefirst evaluation of the first partner, wherein the calculating a thirdvalue for a first partner management index comprises: weighting eachcriteria rating in the spreadsheet with the criteria weight associatedwith each criteria to generate a plurality of criteria scores; weightingthe plurality of criteria scores with the category weight associatedwith each category to generate a plurality of category scores; weightingthe plurality of category scores with the group weight associated witheach group to generate a plurality of group scores; and weighting theplurality of group scores with the index weight associated with thefirst partner management index to calculate the third value; calculatinga partner value of the first partner based on the first value of thepartner agreement index, the second value of the first partner agreementindex, and the third value of the first partner management index; andoutputting a report from a computer, wherein the report comprises thepartner value.
 17. The method of claim 16 wherein the report is anelectronic document and the electronic document comprises first, second,and third summary regions, wherein the first summary region the firstpartner selection index and the groups in the first partner selectionindex, the second summary region comprises the first partner agreementindex and the groups in the first partner agreement index, and the thirdsummary region comprises the first partner management index and thegroups in the first partner management index.
 18. The method of claim 16wherein weights of the indexes are expressed as percentages and thepercentages add up to 100 percent.
 19. The method of claim 16 whereinthe calculating a partner value comprises summing the first, second, andthird values;
 20. The method of claim 16 wherein the first, second, andthird values are expressed as percentages, the calculating a partnervalue comprises summing the first, second, and third values, and adifference between the partner value and 100 percent indicates a degreeof optimization available in the business partnership.
 21. The method ofclaim 16 wherein the collecting information during a first evaluation ofthe first partner comprises collecting actual revenue figures andexpected revenue figures, and the calculating a third value for a firstpartner management index comprises calculating ratios of the actualrevenue figures to the expected revenue figures, wherein the ratios arethe plurality of criteria ratings.